Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6868577" data-attributes="member: 16814">Nothing I've ever said could or should be construed as attempting to chastise you for proselytizing your preferences here.  I'm personally glad you do.  My ability to do the same walks in lockstep with yours -- I'll not ever suggest you can't offer your opinions or that you shouldn't.  I may disagree, and on occasionally, strongly so, but I'll never say you should be silenced or restricted.  Barring rule breaking, of course. I came at this a different way.  The player's free to describe his attacks however he wants within the boundaries of what his attacks do (frex, if the attack pushes but it's described as pulling the enemy closer).  This means he can describe most attacks as an attempt to disarm where the disarm doesn't work but he does something else bad to the enemy.  It only works when he both narrates the attempt and uses the power, for, at that point, his narration moves from just narrating his actions and instead grabs the world for a moment and forces it to align with his intent.  For that use, the enemy obligingly fails to rebuff the disarm.  The character isn't limited in how many times he can narrate the attempt, he's limited in how many times his narration affects anyone but him.To point this to the LOL example, I'm fine with the example up to and until the narration begins affecting others, as in the ZoT example, where the previous narration now requires that it affect other mechanics in the game.  Even if only to call in more ad hoc rulings to support the narration, that's one step too far for my preferred playstyle.  I've played that way, and it can be great fun, but it really leads to a more gonzo feel where things are fast and loose and you define the world though your ability to come up with rationalizations rather than through a cooperative effort (in that playstyle, everyone else has to accept your rationalizations and narration, much like with improv).In 3e and 4e, a rule change would quite often cascade into other rules, as everything was tightly stacked on common assumptions.  Allow one thing here, and it crops up over an over.  Changing things closer to the core had bigger ripples because of the interlocking nature of those rule sets.  4e was better, so long as you stuck to only changing individual power effects, as those were exception based, but the core ruleset was hard to alter without cascading fixes needing to be put into place.  3e, with its non-exception design, meant that many rules interacted in unforseen ways to a change.5e, on the other hand, takes the exception based concepts of 4e, but also silos many of the game mechanics to that they don't interact as much.  Change the rules for movement a bit, and that really only effects how you move and not anything else. But, to your exact question, if you had copied out the rest of the sentence you quoted, you'd have noted that I did call out changing how ability scores are defined is something that has much larger impacts even in 5e.  I find it a very frustrating habit of yours to selectively quote to frame a question while your selection deliberately edits out the part of the quote that goes directly to your framing.  This isn't the first time you've done it.  In the future, at least try to get the whole sentence in, yeah?</blockquote>

Verification